Speaking in Bloomfield Hills, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) said that he is preparing to introduce a bill that if passed would end mortgage-interest write-offs for homes with more than 3,000 sq. ft. of living space.

Those who would cheer such a measure can be reliably counted upon to support such legislation for two reasons: First, they don't like McMansions. Second, bigger homes consume more energy.

On the matter of McMansions I confess to being a little lost. I don't really see the issue.

Each morning we take the dog on a circuit of neighborhood streets and paths, a neighborhood which includes everything from modest homes built 60 or 70 years ago to a newly-emerging behemoth of some 17,000 sq. ft.

All the properties are different and in a number of cases older homes have been torn down to make way for newer and vastly-larger replacements. The architectural uniformity that once prevailed is gone as a result of the new construction, but where are the stone tablets which say sameness is to be valued above all else? Or required?

Some will argue that a few of the new properties are eye-sores, but others blend in remarkably well. Indeed, without careful observation their proportions are unseen.

When I last looked, there was no constitutional requirement for real estate uniformity. We still, as a country, allow individualism. Such concepts as architectural balance and harmony are in the eyes of the beholder -- and look at all the happy people who are pleased to own unique and decidedly nontraditional buildings by Frank Gehry, architecture which has won the Pritzker Prize. Look too at the homes which stand out or the housing from 50 years ago -- it all changes.

So, count one -- the "I don't like it" argument, fails to impress.

Count two, the energy inefficiency argument, is more interesting.

The local power grid produces a given amount of energy. If Jones uses five times more kilowatts than Smith, Jones has a bigger energy bill. However, Jones also raises the universal demand for power consumption, which means the local utility must built more power plants and such additional construction raises power prices for Smith -- whether Smith is careful with his consumption or not.

And so, if the complaint with huge homes has to do with energy consumption, with some caution I'm on board.

But I'm not on board with 3,000 sq. ft. or any similar benchmark. One house of such size may be energy efficient while a tiny home may be inadequately insulated and so poorly designed that it wastes huge numbers of thermal units.

The test for energy is not square footage, it's energy consumption per person. I would expect a family of eight to use more power than a household with two people.

The oddity of Mr. Dingell's proposal is that he has opposed meaningful fuel standards that would impact auto makers, the major employers in his state of Michigan. Without world-class fuel standards -- standards which would make our cars competitive as soon as possible with those of overseas competitors -- our domestic auto industry is losing market share at home and worldwide. Wasteful fuel requirements allow U.S. car companies to produce inefficient vehicles that are not competitive with foreign makes, that don't sell and thus create massive unemployment in the Rust Belt and that continue to make us dependent on OPEC for oil.

"The Europeans," says Dingell, "have shown us how NOT to design a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases -- and we have learned a great deal from their example."

"I plan to design a cap-and-trade program that, unlike the European model, will enable us to reach the goal of drastically reducing greenhouse gases in a cost-effective and fair manner."

In Europe, where gas is $7 a gallon, they know something about fuel efficiency -- and we could learn much from them.

Dingell says he's a co-sponsor of the Hill-Terry bill (H.R. 2927), "which would mandate separate car and truck standards to meet a total fleet fuel economy standard of between 32 and 35 mpg by 2022; increases up to 40 percent over current standards."

The year 2022 is 15 years from now. Europe has huge numbers of more efficient cars today, and so does the rest of the world. Just look at the smaller cars now being sold in the U.S. -- and look who's making them.

How about legislation that taxes inefficient homes -- and inefficient cars, SUVs, trucks, pick-ups and whatever? Why not say that all homes are allocated so much power per resident -- and every kilowatt above that per address is charged at a higher rate?

While we're at it, why not say that all new U.S. cars must get 40 miles a gallon by 2010 -- or that owners will have to pay an annual fuel tax. U.S. car manufacturers produce such vehicles overseas, so why not here?

Mr. Dingell's constituents and companies can build such vehicles -- after all, for decades U.S. cars were the envy of the world. It can happen again.

For more articles by Peter G. Miller, please press here.

Published: September 4, 2007

Use of this article without permission is a violation of federal copyright laws.

Peter G. Miller, also known as OurBroker®, is the author of six real estate books -- including The Common-Sense Mortgage -- and is the original creator and host of America Online's Real Estate Center. Peter's weekly columns appear in more than 100 newspapers nationwide, he is also published in a variety of other media outlets and he is a frequent speaker at national events and conventions. Peter welcomes your questions, comments, and news releases via e-mail at .